Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Hitchens/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Anglo-American

The Wikipedia editors have been struggling to reach a sensible consensus to describe Mr Hitchens's somewhat confused national identity. I have determined that "Anglo-American" is the most suitable solution and I intend to demonstrate my reasons here. First, some points of broad consensus. I hope none of these could be contentious. Christopher Hitchens:

was born, raised and educated in England.
speaks with a British, English accent.
is a citizen of the United Kingdom/subject of the British Crown.
immigrated to the United States as an adult.
has lived, worked, paid taxes etc., in the US for decades.
is a citizen of the United States.
has stated a preference to be regarded as "English" rather than "British".
has addressed audiences in the USA as "my fellow Americans".

Now comes the part that may be contentious. I have found the most similar situation on Wikipeia to be the article on W.H. Auden. Mr Auden was an English poet who immigrated to the US as an adult and became an American citizen. Mr Auden is described as "Anglo-American" on his page. His life story contains numerous other striking similarities with that of Mr Hitchens. His biography is a Good Article. Furthermore, I have cited a very recent and reputable journalistic source referring to Mr Hitchens as "Anglo-American". Cited in the text of the article, this is the report on him featured on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on 6 March 2011. This also satisfies Mr Hitchens's preference to be called "English" instead of "British".

I am, of course, open to the idea that not everybody will agree. I welcome discussion. Windyjarhead (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've supported "British-American" because I think "English-American", as well as "Anglo-American", imply he has only American citizenship. I am looking at it, though, as describing his nationality, whereas I think others view the description as a mere cultural identity. If that makes sense. If not, either way I'm happy with whatever has the most support really. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that politicians and generals are often called "British" (see John Major, Mike Jackson, Boris Johnson) in their articles, which makes sense since their notability is a consequence of their position in the power structure of the United Kingdom as a whole. That seems inconsistent since British people of cultural significance are normally identified as English, Scottish, Welsh etc. in their respective articles. (I cited several above, Sean Connery, David Beckham, Catherine Zeta Jones among others, see also Stephen Hawking, Andrew Sullivan.) There are, of course exceptions, like Richard Dawkins who is called "British", but then again, he was born in Nairobi. Terry Wogan is called "Irish" despite being a naturalized British citizen.
A bit of a mess, I know. The point I am trying to make, is that there is no requirement to spell out the details of a subject's legal citizenship, or indeed dual citizenship, in the opening line. (The unusual constitutional circumstances of the UK do not make this task an easy one, in any case.) Hitchens is notable as a cultural figure. His legal citizenship is mainly a technical matter, though I must concede that he seems to have taken the symbolism of acquiring US citizenship as quite significant as well.
I don't see any compelling reason to call him "British" given that 1. "English" (or "Anglo") is a subset of British 2. It is a common usage on Wikipedia to call people "English" (even if some others are called "British") 3. The subject is cited as preferring "English" to "British" 4. The citizenship issue is handled in the body of the article and the infobox 5. A perfectly-respectable, current, mainstream media reference is cited which refers to him as "Anglo-American" and 6. A comparable figure (W. H. Auden) is identified as "Anglo-American" is his article, which is a Good Article. Please, tell me if I'm missing some compelling reason. Windyjarhead (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that "Anglo-American" is a bad solution. I tried to find sources for that description before I made this edit but it's difficult because he has a book called Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, which always turns up in the search results instead. I'm pleased that a reference has been found, though it would be good to have another one which doesn't require watching a video for verification. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I found the transcript of the viedo, so I've used that instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
If I can just throw my issue with "Anglo-American" out there, and then go away and accept whatever is chosen: I think Anglo-American is really a worse option because it seems to combine the problems of "English-American" and "British-American".
Like British-American, it's too general. Anglo is significantly more general than British, actually. Hell, it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate to describe me as "Anglo-Australian", and Australian is the only nationality I have.
It also doesn't describe his citizenship/nationality. That was my problem with "English-American", but at least "English-American" gives a clear idea of where he is from.
And where you give examples of people who are identified as "English, Welsh etc.", unless I've missed some, they usually are solely described as "English, Welsh etc." When that's the case, it's obvious that they are also British, but "English-American", to me at least, implies he is of "English" ethnicity, but solely American citizenship. The only other person who holds dual British/American citizenship who I've seen here described by their country within the UK is Craig Ferguson, who is described as "Scottish-American".
That being said, I think I may be the only one who looks at this simple description as being about his nationality/citizenship. And obviously what I've said is based on how I interpret things, so I could very well be in the minority (I appear to be here). Either way, it's not that big an issue, these are just my (probably not well worded) thoughts and opinions. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated above, my first preference was also British-American, for pretty much the same reasons. It would be good to get other opinions on British-American versus Anglo-American. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

British versus American English

There have been some reverts of changes to spelling from American to British English in the article, so it would make sense to agree on a variant and have it stated clearly here which the article uses. At the moment, there is some inconsistency (the article uses "globalisation" but "organization"). I suggest that we opt for American English since that seems to have the edge in the article right now, and Hitchens lives in America and writes primarily for American publications, so most of the quotes are likely to be in American English. This of course wouldn't apply to proper nouns, such as Labour Party. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a rather odd question. This is the international and thus British English Wikipedia. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
How does international equal British? Please see MOS:ENGVAR, which states that "the English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
International English is British English. And if the article was started in British English it is to remain in that variety.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cush (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Different variants are used in different places - Australian and Canadian English vary from British English, for example. The policy clearly states that no one variety is preferred. Do you have evidence for the claim that the article was started in British English? As I've pointed out, it seems to tend towards American English as it stands. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I echo Cordless Larry's sentiment above, how on earth does Cush suggest that "International English is British English"? By fiat? No. No single version of the English language is to be preferred over any other, and the circumstances of a particular article dictate which version of the language is most appropriate. Again, see MOS:ENGVAR.
There is no equivalent of the Académie française for the English language. Even if there were; from what source would it derive its authority? See John McWhorter's The Power of Babel, chapter six, for a more thorough exploration of this idea. [1]
Christopher Hitchens, as Cordless Larry correctly stated, writes and is published in American English. The Guardian, a British newspaper, explicitly comments on this very fact in its review of his latest book. [2] (See paragraph nine.) It is most appropriate in this case to use the accepted norms of American English in this article, with the exceptions of direct quotations and proper nouns. Windyjarhead (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

'Deathbed Conversion'

The original remark about this read as follows: "Hitchens has discredited any reports of his repenting to god". This was rephrased because of it's religious overtones. The rephrasing was slightly longer, and it included a quotation. The purpose of rephrasing the statement was to avoid suggesting something that Mr. Hitchens had not implied.

Secondly, the original paragraph about Mr. Hitchens' illness was perfectly insensitive. It was fully rewritten to be more considerate to his condition, and to emphasise his convalescence. However, the part about 'changing his beliefs' was retained.

For obvious reasons, this topic rests on a narrow line. The issue of death and belief is delicate. In Mr. Hitchens' case, he has emphasised that his unbelief has undergone no change.

A small and rather insignificant remark about his beliefs has turned into a verbose paragraph, with even stronger connotations and religious overtones, suggesting that Mr. Hitchens has considered the prospect of undergoing a "deathbed conversion", and this remains the final word. This is ridiculous. It completely misses the point of trying to remain objective on this topic. The final word should be a neutral statement about his illness.

Either the original statement should be rephrased or, lacking agreement, this topic should be removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.165.144 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for such a section. Although the question might have some relevance for his religious opponents, it certainly has none whatsoever for Mr Hitchens. There is no danger of him having any sort of "deathbed conversion". He is not on his deathbed, and such a conversion would be utterly pointless anyways. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Reinsert: Of course, "deathbed conversion" is a bit of an unfortunate section title, no doubt about it. However, he has addressed the matter himself, and has responded to questions about this in several prominent interviews. I doubt that anything resembling Christian propaganda or even bias has much of a chance of standing in this article. It would be ridiculous indeed to fear that such a paragraph might become suggestive of an impending "conversion", and that certainly would not be reason to remove it. Hitchens is adamant, outspoken and quotable on it. I see no reason to remove his own remarks on the topic, not least of all because they counter the common notion that all non-believers will start to pray when faced with their own demise. Trigaranus (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the original remark rephrased without religious overtones. It requires no more than a brief statement if at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.217.104 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Influences

I think the list of influences is much too big. I am intending on removing all of his contemporaries/friends (Amis, Fenton, Dawkins etc.) as well as authors like Wodehouse. He has expressed his love for the works of Wodehouse and Waugh but I wouldn't describe them as influences on his work. There are plenty of other authors he admires like E.M. Forster and Anthony Powell and to put every author he admires would be pointless. I would like to leave it with a concise list of the following: Orwell, Paine, Jefferson, Marx, Trotsky and Luxemburg. I also think possibly Spinoza should be added, but I won't add that myself as he is not crucial. The pictures of Hitchens' influences that are shown on the DailyHitchens.com blog are those of the people mentioned as well as Socrates and so I think I have a basis for these people to be listed as his influences. --Omarraii (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Influences

Hitchens mentioned in an interview with the National Post (April 4, 2010) that he used to read MAD Magazine in England as a boy, and that Al Jaffee was an influence. I don't know if he was joking or not but he said it. Link on hitchensweb. 174.89.31.149 (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Using another picture

I don't feel the current picture is the correct one to use. Although it's a pretty recent picture, it shows Mr. Hitchens in a state most people are not used to see him. Yes, we should use a recent picture, but also use one that represent him the best. I'd suggest using for example or . These are the two best pictures I found on Commons, and the former is my favourite; He's looking to the left and into the the text, which is better composition wise. -- Sunny256|✎ 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the first picture you linked as the infobox image, and place his more recent image down near the cancer section. GManNickG (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
A great idea. I'll do it to see how it works out. -- Sunny256|✎ 07:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation

I don't know the correct citation procedure, but could someone add this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NegtQIkhz6g

as the citation for the quote "I sometimes think if I'd been any good at that job, I might still be doing it. "-- Hairybuddha|✎ 00:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

English vs America punctuation

I see wasted effort ping-ponging between

  • "color" and "colour"
  • He said, "This." and He said, "This".

Since he is an American by choice, American conventions should be used. --Javaweb (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

What Hitchens is by choice is utterly irrelevant. The original language style of the article determines its current language style. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It totally doesn't matter whether we use British or American English, or whether we use punctuation inside or outside quotation marks. The practice at Wikipedia is to stick to an article's existing style. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
But it is indeed a requirement that British and American English are not mixed in one article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with [[[User:Anthonyhcole]] and User:Cush. --Javaweb (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
This because of me undoing some edits to the punctuation? If it was, I have to admit a bit of ignorance on my part. Though I'm aware of the differences of putting punctuation inside the inverted commas in American English, I thought it was only in certain situations. I wouldn't have thought it applied to sentences which aren't entirely within inverted commas. Either way, I agree there should be a consistent style, and if American English is what should be used, then those conventions should be used. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the policy: MOS:LQ#LQ. Use this rather than my examples --Javaweb (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Religion

Can Hitchens be called Jewsish "because Jewish descent is matrilineal", if he is only 1/8 Jewish, matrilinial or patrilinial?

He is irreligious. And Judaism is an ideology that is acquired via indoctrination. It is not inherited biologically. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not according to Judiasm itself, and neither according to American and British law. Both of which define Judiasm as a race. Colt .55 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
As a further point, you (Cush) say yourself in the section below English vs America punctuation, "What Hitchens is by choice is utterly irrelevant" Colt .55 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What? It is irrelevan to the choice of language style in the article. Not to his self-identification. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just managed to plow through Hitchens' "Hitch 22." He devotes a chapter in the book, "Thinking Thrice about the Jewish Question...", to his "Jewish roots." I don't want to get into the argument of whether Judaism is a religion or a race. All I can say is that Hitch himself states on page 384 of the Book that he would be considered "Jewish" under Mosaic law, the Israeli Law of Return and the Nuremburg Laws. This chapter is one of the most interesting in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholascarew (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Didn't Hitchens act as an informal Devil's Advocate on the cause of canonisation of Mother Teresa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I've read Hitch-22 and in it he states that Dodo his maternal Grandmother was Jewish and she changed her name from Levin to Lynn. Dodo did not raise her children Jewish, but Christopher's mother knew she was Jewish. Both Dodo and Christopher's mother did not tell either of their spouses about their heritage. Christopher was told by his grandmother that he was Jewish only after both spouses had died, by which time Christopher had already had children of his own (having raised them without religion). Christopher Hitchen's IS Jewish, not 1/2th, or a 1/4th or an 1/8th. As stated in my comment to "Cush" above, he is Jewish by demonination, not faith. Colt .55 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean denomination, in which case it STILL doesn't make sense. Denomination IS religious, not ethnic. Ethnicity doesn't care HOW a religious denomination claims it is inherited. Just because religious Jewish people SAY "it's" passed on maternally, doesn't mean you can ignore the ethnicity of the other half of the individual's ancestors. If Hitchen's father was British, that makes Christopher half British at least, you can't just say that doesn't count because his mother identified as Jewish. Similarly if all his Grand parents were not Jewish except his maternal grandmother, which seems likely, that makes him 3/4 "something else", not Jewish. How would his ethnicity be different if his paternal grandmother was Jewish instead? It wouldn't be, but according to what you're saying, he would no longer be Jewish, which doesn't make sense. We have an article Who is a Jew? which discusses the complexity of the issue, but I think if you are talking about ethnicity you can not call Christopher Jewish. He identifies as descended from Jewish ancestors which is accurate because some of his ancestors were Jewish, but you can't ignore that most were not. Vespine (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, all please stop this religioracist nonsense. Judaism or Jewishness are not biologically inheritable traits. And although Jews and (Neo-)Nazis put emphasis on racial and maybe cultural inheritance of Jewishness for obvious reasons, in reality such a categorization of a person is utterly nonsensical. Judaism and Jewishness are defined by individual religious and cultural affiliation and affinity. Christopher Hitchens is not Jewish whatsoever. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"LGBT"

Uh. What? 99.189.175.248 (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the categories. Someone who supports LGBT is not necessarily LGBT. And Hitchens is not LGBT. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think he describes an adolescent same sex encounter in Hitch 22 (?), and this has occasionally been used as justification to put him in the LGBT category on this article, but I'm not aware of him identifying as gay or bi. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I read his book and the whole point was that at a boy's boarding school it was like prison: Things happened between boys more out of necessity and utility then anything else. There were also cases where boys loved each other but he wasn't one of them. He is very open and honest about his experiences and he is very sympathetic to LGBT rights issues but he does not identify himself as LGBT. Vespine (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we're all in agreement so...--Ktlynch (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's best that the LGBT category be removed, until one comes up with a source confirming that he self-identifies as such. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 17:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I have removed it already. And I also removed "Bisexual writers" today. Who comes up with such pointless categories anyways? ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Far-back Jewish ancestry?

Contrary to editor Cush's take on the issue, Hitchens' mother was Jewish according to Hitch 22. That's not "far-back"! Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

His mother? Wasn't it said here that he was "1/8 Jewish"?
Anyways, he is not a Jew religiously and has no ties to Jewish culture (which also derives from the Religion and its rules), so the categories were not justified. ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
See this recent discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, the comment says "Article makes no mention to Hitchens having Jewish ancestry" and removed "Category:American people of British-Jewish descent" and later "Category:British people of Jewish descent". Glad to help. See

Oxford Degree?

I just read "Hitch 22" and nowhere can I find any mention of him actually getting any sort of undergraduate degree from Oxford. He carefully recites the fact that his pal, Martin Amis got a First in English (a major accomplishment), but is totally silent as to his own academic achievements at Oxford. Given his sneeringly pompous and demeaning intellectual snobbery, it would be know what formal degree, if any, he took at Oxford. As you can probably tell, I can't stand the man, though I agree with most of his opinions. He reminds me of another horrible snob (who of course Chris adores), William F. Buckley. Nicholascarew (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Alma Mater indicates he studied at Oxford, so that is accurate. If he, say, got a journalism/writing job before completing his degree, that is worth mentioning. Editors, any good references? --Javaweb (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
Here's one: http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/faculty.aspx?id=10310 mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Daniel. --Javaweb (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

...Hitchens admits to drinking heavily."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "Hitchens takes pride in drinking heavily."? I was always under the impression that he reveled in his reputation, not that he merely admitted to it. Vincent (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to find a recent source confirming he said he was proud of it if you want that to stick. Very recent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd want something more neutral than "takes pride" as well as more accurate than "admits". "...boasts of drinking heavily"? "...states he drinks heavily"? :) Vincent (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
What about "describes/d himself as a heavy drinker"? ... Provided the source reflects that. The only version I can access seems to cut out after 5 paragraphs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Think Inc noshow

I've just reverted this edit, since it had no source, and I could not find anything about this at all. I've since seen a couple of messages on Twitter that seem to confirm his absence, but of course these are not WP:RS. WP:NOTNEWS and all that applies, as well. However, feel free to re-add it if a reliable source shows up. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, his Facebook page confirms it as does the page for Think, inc. Mr Hitchens picked the person who writes the Facebook page but does not edit it himself. --Javaweb (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

File:Hitchens.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hitchens.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Illness

I propose that the fact that Mr. Hitchens is battling cancer be mentioned in the first paragraph, as this is a significant current development in his life, and one that is the first talking point in various media. briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia states "Be bold" so go ahead and make the change. I for for one thoroughly concur with you.Farrtj (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Not sure about "battling". Maybe "suffering from", "being treated for". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have always liked "being bold," but don't want to cause any offense on such a personal issue. briantw "One man can make a difference." (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens writes about his current status in Christopher Hitchens (January 2012). "Trial of the Will". Vanity Fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javaweb (talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent death hatnote

I've removed the "recent death" hatnote for a second time now because I still don't see a need for it. There is no indication in news reports that information surrounding his death might change significantly.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A highly controversial and publicly known personality died. I'm sure there is more to come with regards to this story. Soxwon (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it too. Please don't put it back it is unattractive, insensitive and redundant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Somebody restored it and I reverted it. Please explain what possible benefit this is to our reader. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need it here. The template fits for unexpected deaths, but Hitch' had been ill for some time and his fight was well documented. Sure some details will change, but not major ones. --GraemeL (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The template exists to indicate very recent deaths, which is clearly applicable here. And there are indeed nore news expected to come in about the more detailled circumstances, like the cause of death (pneumonia), and who was with him when he died, and of course reactions to his death.
So don't violate WP policy by removing the template. ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus here to add the template and there is no policy that says it must be added. Please don't add it again. --GraemeL (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
From the documentation of the very template: "As such, it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day, and should be removed as soon as the editing goes down to a normal level again. Do not use it merely to tag the article of a recently deceased person, as that would defeat the purpose of the template" (emphasis mine). By a very rough count, we may have about 30 editors, not 100, and of those 30 one third were IPs, who are currently excluded by semi-protection. So policy would tend to require the removal of the template. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
What policy are you referring to, Cush? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Domestic Policy" - the War on Drugs

I have seen Christopher Hitchens state his opposition to the war on drugs in several interviews, but the reference provided here for a citation doesn't fly. Nowhere in the linked article from The Guardian (reference 102) does Hitch mention drugs at all, much less call prohibition "sadistic". The article is about Che Guevara. This needs a new source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.254.156 (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Influences section

It's huge. How about let's limit it to those that we have references for? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this article at top quality

Fewer than 5,000 hits a day normally; yesterday 627,000 hits. One reason we care about WP? Keep up the good work, guys. Tony (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

More than a million hits in 30 days - most of that in two days --Greenmaven (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

There was a very nice photo uploaded by the photographer about a month ago. What happened to it? It should be reinstated. ProfNax (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Very soft

I can tell that this article was mostly written By Hitchens' weird fans; you all imitate his writing style. The content of the article is also indicative: It's extremely sympathetic and pandering. The sections of the article that deal with his stand on the Iraq war are very vague and badly written. You only include the arguments he made after all of his old arguments about nuclear weapons and ties to Al-Qaida were exploded.

Here's a particularly bad section: "Though he admits to the numerous failures of the war, and its high civilian casualties, he sticks to the position that deposing Saddam Hussein was a long-overdue responsibility of the United States, after decades of poor policy, and that holding free elections in Iraq has been a success not to be scoffed at. He argues that a continued fight in Iraq against insurgents, whether they be former Saddam loyalists or Islamic extremists, is a fight worth having, and that those insurgents, not American forces, should be the ones taking the brunt of the blame for a slow reconstruction and high civilian casualties." It's incredible that such a weasely couple of sentences could stay in the article for so long.

It's mentioned that he debated widely on the issue of Iraq war: "with everyone from George Galloway to Scott Ritter." As far as I know, these two are the only men he has debated the Iraq war with.

Shitty article. Do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.107.115 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Wikipedia is edited and administrated almost entirely by unpaid volunteers; making demands and insulting the work of the editors is not likely to get you any sympathy or co-operation. Constructive criticism is welcome and if you think you can do a better job, go right ahead and be bold. Then we can all have a go at judging your writing. Vespine (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, Vespine. This truly is a shitty article. Neocon warmongering garbage at its finest, hiding behind the bogus Wikipedia claim to be "encyclopaedic" - upheld by a thugocracy of Wiki "editors" like you strongarming their way into purveying their own bigoted POV as "fact". Shitty article, shitty authors: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.252.24 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Criticism doesn't have to be constructive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.107.115 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It also doesn't have to be given any weight at all. Constructive criticism is usually more likely to contribute to an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP's point seems obvious. We need to make Hitchens look bad and to write poorly while doing so. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the "with everyone from George Galloway to Scott Ritter" text. Even if it's true that he had such debates with many people, "from A to Z" indicates endpoints of a linear set, and shouldn't be used when A and Z are merely two examples. Joule36e5 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Despite the antagonistic tone of the original post here, I must say that I agree with the general sentiment that parts of the article are poorly written. The passage quoted by the poster is a good example - the statements at the very least should be properly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual

He himself admits to participating in bisexual/homosexual activities in school. So what is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.194.228 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Those activities are already mentioned in the article. --Javaweb (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I'm surprised it's worth mentioning. Is it still regarded as exotic to be anything but strictly heterosexual? We don't usually announce that the subject of a BLP is left-handed, do we? Tony (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "admit"? Normally an "admission" is attached to some kind of guilt or crime. Has Hitchens been guilty of some crime by participating in bisexual activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.0.52 (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It probably did constitute breaking the law on several occasions. The article doesn't state which years said activities took place in, but considering that he was born in 1949, some of the activities would have broken the law. Homosexual acts between males were illegal in the UK prior to 1967. From 1967-1994, they were only legal when in private, between two consenting men both aged at least 21. 89.194.12.165 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

LGBT project

Hitchens was actively bisexual for years in his teens and twenties. Therefore he is of interest to the LGBT project; why has the LGBT banner been removed from this talk page? 109.249.236.170 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Those activities are already mentioned in the article. Here is his most quoted LGBT statement:

Ian Parker (OCTOBER 16, 2006). "He Knew He Was Right". The New Yorker. A few years ago, he claimed that the four most overrated things in life were champagne, lobsters, anal sex, and picnics. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) He thinks eating lobster is a pain in the butt. Lets add him to the food project, too while we are at it. --Javaweb (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Nationality

Someone has changed British-American to English, with a raft of defensive ref-tags. Is this really necessary? The man himself would have been happy only with British-American. Tony (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There is probably a precedent for this. Maybe if you ask at WP:BLPN what the usual practice is. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY indicates that the term the subject uses/used is preferred. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
By that criterion, the first cite does seem to support "English" over a hyphenation. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Complicated by the fact that lots of other publications refer to him as American-English.
You are right that he referred to himself as English, at least before he took American citizenship. I'm not sure about after.
Probably best to leave it as English for the time being as we have a reliable source for that. --GraemeL (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The cite I linked to is from his recent memoir, as a US citizen. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Doh, should have read it again. I checked them out from the article earlier and didn't bother checking your link here. Seems definitive then. --GraemeL (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
While British-American or Anglo-American seem most appropriate to me (as he was a citizen of both Britain and the USA), perhaps the language can be modeled from the T.S. Eliot page (who of course has the reverse phenomenon), which states, "Although he was born an American he moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at age 25) and was naturalised as a British subject in 1927 at age 39".jthetzel (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone has just changed it to English-born American - whis is totally incorrect. Anyone trying to claim he was American should take note of the fact that he has never ever referred to himself as American and never revoked his British nationality. Littleone77 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether not you believe it's appropriate to refer to Hitchens as English alone, Goodreads is not an appropriate and verifiable source to do so. And I think you'll find that he referred himself to an American on constant occasions, albeit "Anglo-American" also. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you wont have any trouble supplying a reference. Note that several other references were removed from English earlier today as they were considered overload. --GraemeL (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Goodreads is a convenience link and a poor choice at that. We should be citing the source material (Hitch-22), the quote is on page 228 of this version, I'll insert it. Though really, we're using that quote as evidence that he would have preferred a specific nationality - that's more of a talk page item than a main page item. Unless the book specifies "I would prefer to be called..." it's not really much use in the actual article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, I think "American" would be the best choice, followed immediately by a statatement that he was born in Britain and gained dual citizenship in 2007. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
He's been British for all 62 years of his life, a US citizen for but four, and he effectively self-identified as English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
He also had no choice of where to be born, but could choose both an adult citizenship and country to live in. In both regards he chose the United States. Also, "English" and "Anglo" refer to either language or culture or both, while "British" is a nationality. I think both should be reflected, possibly in the horribly awkward "Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a British-born author and polemicist who became an American citizen in 2007." WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. He had no choice - but you're ignoring the fact there is no secret he has always identified himself very specifically as being English - it's referenced and he never gave up his British citizenship when he took US citizenship at the age of 58 (!). Re English/British - it's fairly obviousl what English refers to, but if anyone is struggling perhaps we can wiki-link it to English People (!?). Or if you want to start a campaign to change English to British, I would hope you will start with Scottish, Welsh and Norther Irish first and see how that works out for you.

Littleone77 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends on whether we want the reader to know his national roots and his preferred self-description (English) or his citizenship status (British and American - "British-American" implies, like "Italian-American" or "Irish-American", nothing about his British citizenship). I defer to his preference. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the article in British or American English? Someone has just removed an "l", per American spelling. I'd have thought British spelling was more appropriate. Tony (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
American English uses "-ize" in many cases where British English uses "-ise." There are seven instances in this article and they all use "-ize", so I assume this is written in merkin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
"British-American" is at least better than just "English". Operative word there is "just". Most Wikipedia projects use a similar hyphenated compound. Two Wikipedias finesse it without using the hyphenation that Hitchens disliked. Portuguese has him as "British and American". Another notes his places of birth and death in the lede along with the relevant dates, and otherwise doesn't deal with the question. (Another calls him an American who was an English-born Jew—quite a lack of finesse!) Hitchens was quintessentially English but chose America—and not casually! That would have been very unlike Hitchens. I think we should leave it at "British-American" and let the body of the article flesh out the details. SeoMac (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"God" vs. "god" (capitalization)

User: Anupam changed the spelling from the lower case "god" to upper case "God" in the phrase According to Hitchens, the concept of a God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief [...] from the introduction, arguing that it is a proper noun. However, while "God", when referring to the Abrahamic god, is indeed a proper noun, in this case it's used as a generic concept, as obvious from the indefinite article (a god), and hence is used as a common noun. I'll restore it to lower case. If we keep this discussion up for only 18 weeks, we just might make WP:LAME! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

this should actually be easy: how did Hitchens spell it in his book(s)? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Consistent use of "g"od [[3]]Midlakewinter (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Anupam agreed to leave the literal quote in the preceding sentence in lower case. But this second phrase is a paraphrase, not a quote (or at least not marked as one). I'm travelling, so I don't have my copy of God is not Great handy. As far as I can tell from the Amazon preview, he only capitalizes the word in quotes where other people talk about a particular god, and otherwise uses lower case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Good. Whether it's a paraphrase or not doesn't really matter; he meant "god". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

American Power & the Crisis Over Iraq

On the eve of war, 5 days before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, The Los Angeles Times, The Los Angeles Institute for the Humanities, and UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism hosted a debate entitled “American Power and the Crisis Over Iraq,” which included the following participants as debaters; Christopher Hitchens, “Vanity Fair” contributing editor. Michael Ignatieff, Harvard Professor of Human Rights Policy. Mark Danner, “New Yorker” staff writer. Robert Scheer, syndicated columnist.

  • Debate Video: [4]
  • Debate Analysis: [5]

74.143.208.248 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq War

Interesting that he died on the same day that the war he supported officially ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.243.213 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Only from the USA's perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Last words

What were his last words spoken on his death bed or of his last published statement? If I knew, I'd report them into the article. Sometimes it's quite a compelling piece of trivia when it's reported of an intellectual person known for speaking their mind and writing. Like Oscar Wilde ("Either that wallpaper goes or I do") or Enoch Powell ("That's not much of a lunch, is it?") or Karl Marx ("Last words are for damned fools who haven't said enough already.")— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.5.109 (talk • contribs) 20:45, December 18, 2011‎

Here are some extracts from his final interview, conducted by Richard Dawkins: [6]. I think the whole thing was printed in last Sunday's (yesterday's) Observer (Review section) but I can't seem to find it online. 86.136.192.56 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It was printed in Sunday 18 December's Observer, in The New Review section, pages 4-5: much longer than the extracts from the interview on the New Statesman website but still with the note 'The full version of this interview is published in the current issue of the New Statesman', so presumably not the entire thing appears in The Observer. Looks like you've got to stump up to read it in full. 86.136.192.56 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
That is his final interview, we may never know his final words and we are dependent on a reliable source for them. I know Hitchens himself was of the opinion someone would shove a deathbed conversion into his mouth, so that's something to watch for. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So then we might speak of his closing remarks or of the theme of his overall remarks in his final recorded interview. Two releases of excerpts exist and the full text is available by purchasing the Christmas issue of the New Statesman magazine currently on newstands. He also wrote a last column for Vanity Fair to disprove the maxim of Nietzsche that "what doesn't kill me makes me strong".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikhvirtue (talk • contribs) 17:41, December 19, 2011‎
Meh, making a point of quoting his final interview seems a bit recent-ish. If we had the full text it might be good to include it as an external link, but generally I wouldn't give it much more weight or text than any other source (i.e. judge it on its contents rather than its timing). Might be worth noting it was his last interview. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I offer the following obituary on Hitch by the art and social critic David Walsh - a healthy antidote to the gushing reviews from the Left. Perhaps these series of critiques by Walsh can be added to sources for the article? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/hitc-d17.shtml
36hourblock (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Very revealing labelling there 36hourblock. Of all modern political commentators, Hitchens would be the silliest for you to label as simply leftist. If that's how you saw him, you haven't been paying attention. Maybe a glance at the section below will help. HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It's a vitriolic article from a website of dubious notability. It's also an opinion piece. Could possibly be used to show his drift from his socialist past, but we're better off citing more reliable sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Newsweek resource

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2011/12/16/remembering-christopher-hitchens.html

99.190.85.17 (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to death not from notable publication

I am undoing this edit because Norman Finkelstein self-published opinion on a non-notable site (his own) is not important. Not having ever heard of him, I looked at his wiki page:he was let go from his assistant Prof job in 2007 at DePaul U and has not worked even as an assistant prof since then. --Javaweb (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Finkelstein remains a respected commentator (albeit controversial) on the Middle East and continues to deliver lectures in the U.S. and abroad. He is periodically interviewed on Democracy Now! and Russia Today, and he still writes for Counterpunch, Mondoweiss, among other publications. A documentary film has been made of him. The mere fact that he has not been employed since 2007 does not make him any less notable a figure than, say, George McGovern or Jimmy Carter, both of whom, despite not being "employed" in the traditional sense, remain respected public figures, whose opinions still merit attention. (On another note, Finkelstein's opinion was also published in Counterpunch.) Therefore, I do not see any reason to remove Finkelstein's reaction to Hitchens' death. --Valvin (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter was elected President of the United States, is still in the National News with his charity work and his work making sure that elections are fair abroad and defeated Ford for President. So, yes there is a reason why Ford's death might have a Carter remark in Wikipedia. But it would not be there unless notable publications such as the NY Times thought he was important enough to be one of the primary folks to ask. It does not matter what you or I think about who should be included unless there are equally highly notable sources that think he is so connected to Hitchens above most others. That is why it doesn't belong. --Javaweb (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

--Javaweb (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I will instead cite Finkelstein's reaction that has been published in Counterpunch, which is the same source for Alexander Cockburn's reaction to Hitchens's death and should meet your criterion of a "notable publication," as opposed to his own personal website. Being "connected to Hitchens above most others" is not a suitable criterion for exclusion as, if I remember correctly, Hitchens met Tony Blair only once to debate religion, and Richard Dawkins, by his own admission, was not particularly close to Hitchens (I assume you would not be in favor of removing Barack Obama's reaction to Steve Jobs's death, notwithstanding the fact that the pair met only a few times). The only issue, then, with which you have a problem is whether Finkelstein himself is a notable figure, and as it happens, I have already adequately demonstrated Finkelstein's notability as a writer and public intellectual. If you still dispute Finkelstein's notability, I suggest you move to have his Wikipedia page deleted by raising this question before the entire Wikipedia community instead of going back and forth with me over such a trivial issue. Therefore, if you have no further objections, I will re-add Finkelstein's reaction with the revised citation, and I suggest that this matter be put to rest. --Valvin (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hitchens attended Alexander Cockburn's family affairs, considered him a friend,and was at the Nation with Cockburn, and used to be an old comrade. Did Hitchens dedicate columns talking about Mr. F? What was the public's interest in Hitchens and F? If Hitchens didn't care more than most and the public didn't care, why should readers? This is not a trivia page.
Barack Obama represented the US when he talked about Jobs. Although the bio would be complete w/o Blair, at least Hitchens debated him and major publications reported on it. The [BBC] published Blair's opinion. If this is trivial to you, just don't add it back. --Javaweb (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
Hitchens reviewed two books of Finkelstein's and maintained a correspondence with him prior to their falling out, but all that is irrelevant as your own personal criterion that Finkelstein must have some established relationship with Hitchens (which I just demonstrated) is not satisfactory grounds for the deletion of Finkelstein's reaction. Your other objections -- namely, whether Finkelstein is a notable figure and whether his website is a credible source -- have been adequately answered; as for the latter objection, I have already revised the citation to a more "notable" source. The onus is now on you to cite which Wikipedia guideline justifies the removal of the content in question--if you can, I'd be happy to let this matter drop and go on my way; if you cannot, I cannot see what other objection might be raised. -Valvin (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the references above which show
  • Hitchens wrote a positive blurb on Mr. F's THE RISE AND FALL OF PALESTINE: A PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE INTIFADA YEARS and
  • a Nation column discussing Mr. F's The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.
The link marked their falling out are dueling columns between Hitchens and Chomsky rather than with Mr. F. I'm assuming they are presented as an example of one of the many comrades on the left he lost with his Iraq War stance. Mr. F is still not in the front tier of people who had responses to Hitchen's death that readers would care about but at least he has some connection. --Javaweb (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
I assume this matter can now be put to rest. I very much appreciate your seriousness and cooperation. --Valvin (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Remembering Hitchens by Victor Navasky December 21, 2011. This article appeared in the January 9-16, 2012 edition of The Nation. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Column resource

99.181.131.214 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop it! (A futile wish)

Not much added to this article since about December 20th is of any encyclopaedic value. Stop it! You just demonstrate how (in some areas) Wikipedia has gone astray from its objectives since its early days. Sleuth21 (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What changes would you suggest? Be bold. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Hitchens' academic record censored?

In "hitch22" Hitchens rather dishonestly implies that he received 2nd class honours at uni. He actually received a 3rd (pretty much a fail). Clearly his fans don't like this to be on the record. Could this please not be censored from his bio on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you fail, you don't get a degree. What is the reliable source for this edit? What is the correspondence between the grades he got then and the ones awarded now? Has the scale changed? For example, is there a 4th class honour now but not in the past? Coming from the US, I'm not familiar with the English system of grading. In the US, you can just get a degree or additionally get one with Latin_honors or other such distinction. Is this similar? --Javaweb (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
We're not here to review his book. We don't seem to say much about his degree at all. I don't see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's highly relevant to his bio - as an acclaimed intellectual, it's most unusual to see such a poor academic record. This could mean that he was never as bright as perceived, OR that his socialist activities got in the way. Either way, it's interesting. The degrees "awarded now" would have been honorary degrees, not undergrad graded ones. I assure you, 3rd class honours is tantamount to a fail pretty much. Hitchens has so assiduously cleaned his history on this that it may in fact be dificult to cite a source. I will attempt to locate one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a mention in the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255852/So-WERE-Tory-ministers-gay-flings-Christopher-Hitchens-Oxford.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This section looks like some kind of whinge about Hitchens. The sensationalist section heading (censorship!) is obviously inappropriate, and opinions from passers-by about the significance of his academic record are not relevant to this article. If there is a proposal for a change to the article, please make it, otherwise, see WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq thank you for expressing your opinion. I don't want to alter the article until the issue is discussed and sorted, so there won't be serial reversing. If it isn't censorship, er, what is it then? Pray tell!

I remember the cited grade being a 3rd from other sources. If he does imply, in the book that it was closer to a 2nd, wellthat's worth taking into account. In either way, there should be less hysteria--it is a point of fact. Other interpretations should be avoided also it's not "tantamount to a fail", a 3rd is a 3rd, and a fail is a fail. Furthermore, it is not unusual that clever young men got lost in the bosom of an ancient university and stumble academically only to have great careers later. Remember also that those universities used to give out 4th class honours degrees. I can't find out exactly when this practise was discontinued but if it was current to Hitchens it would mean his 3rd has been bumped up to a second over time. Of course the point is relevant to the biography but it should just be baldy stated and then move on. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a second source: Richard Lea (16 December 2011). "Christopher Hitchens dies aged 62". The Guardian. After he graduated in 1970 with a third-class degree, the doors of Fleet Street opened wide for Hitchens. LyndellaLee, thank you for the reference. Since the word "honour" will be confusing to some American readers (where graduating with honor is a good thing, it should just be called "third-class degree". If we find that the degree grading system is unchanged since the late '60s, then we can add in whatever Hitchens said his degree was in his book. Just checked: this wiki article does say he got 3rd class degree in 1970.--Javaweb (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thought for Today Did Jesus have an 'O' level to his name, or even graduate from Rabbinical College? Did God have any secretarial skills before typing the Bible? Are you a Catholic, ktlynch? I don't actually care.80.42.230.249 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)drlofthouse80.42.230.249 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The elite universities in Britain have different grading systems; the Oxford University also offered a 4th Class Honours in the 1970s. Hitchens received a Second Class Honours; even a Third Class Honours from Oxford is equivalent to a First Class Honours from Bradford University, for instance. There's an article on Wikipedia explaining the grading system of Oxford and Cambridge.

vandalism 2 Feb 2012

reverted back to ClueBot NG Revision as of 00:52, 2 February 2012 --Javaweb (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Christopher Hitchens#Reactions to death

I can't see the relevance of this section, recently added by Valvin (talk · contribs). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens was a prominent writer and, as called by Richard Dawkins, "one of the greatest orators of all time," whose battle against cancer was well publicized and received a considerable amount of media attention (including on CNN with Anderson Cooper, CSPAN, and 60 Minutes). Reactions by notable individuals on the death of a notable figure, therefore, merit attention, as it was the case with Kim Jong Il, Gerald Ford, and Steve Jobs. --Valvin (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. I can just see such such a section becoming a magnet for over-the-top hagiography and sly spite, but I won't be reverting. Regarding Finkelstein, below, I didn't recognise the name, but all the others were instantly recognisable (I'm in Australia). You might consider letting go of that quote on the grounds he just isn't recognisable enough, at least internationally. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Dawkins' statement carries little weight, given that as a scientist he's hardly the leading authority on who the greatest orators are, and secondly he's biased, as a friend of Hitchens.Farrtj (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this issue has been settled, but I am in agreement with Anthonyhcole, that the quote by Finklestein is excessive and should be scaled back. His quote is currently given WP:undue weight. danielkueh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with danielkueh and Anthonyhcole. It is absurd that Finklestein's quotations are several times as long as quotes from Hitchens, the article's subject. There is no indication that any major source gives a fig about what Finklestein had to say on this subject. When it first came up during the winter holidays, I had family celebrations to attend to, as many other editors did, so this got dropped. Thanks for picking it up again. --Javaweb (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
Quite right. So there are two questions here. Q#1, should we mention Finklestein? If we have to quote critics or detractors at all, then they should come from more prominent or easily recognizable figures (e.g., William Craig, Noam Chomsky, and Douglas Wilson) who are known to have been in contact with Hitchens in some way, e.g., debates, publishing, etc. Q#2 If we do agree to keep Finklestein, then where should we place his quote or name? Finklestein is known for his writings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not on the works of Hitchens or Hitchens himself. Thus, his long quote that is prominently positioned (third position) is out of place and should instead, be summarized as just one sentence or less and placed at the very bottom (behind Krauss). danielkueh (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Christopher_Hitchens#Reactions to death is already too long. It reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Pick a cross-section of the most notable reactions that people will care about a few years from now. People that are at least as well-known as the subject and have a regular two-way connection with Hitchens. This is not an exhaustive collection of reactions. Lots of folks have a grudge to settle and want to take a late hit at Hitchens when he is not around to respond. To be in the article, they have to have been very important on the world stage or been very important in Hitchens' work, according to many wp-quality sources. Mr. F can be dropped. --Javaweb (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

god is Not Great.

Well, looks like I've stepped in it. I always assumed the title was "god is Not Great" but there seems to be a cosniderable amount of dispute over at God is Not Great which ended with "no consensus", so until THAT is resolved, i'm not really sure what should be done here. Vespine (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New Picture for Hitchens needed

Can someone please find a more respectable picture of Hitchens to post. I know there are plenty of better pictures that would suit this page much better than the current one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.84.39 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the current lead picture. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a better picture is needed. One like this: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011/_jcr_content/par/cn_contentwell/par-main/cn_blogpost/cn_float_container/cn_image.size.hitchens-2004-contributor-image.jpg

OR

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111216073619-christopher-hitchens-story-top.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.68.113 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • We are only able to accept free images that are either already available on the Wikimedia Commons or ones that you can upload there yourself with a user account, provided you have the proper knowledge of their copyright status. The ones you've linked do not appear to be free images. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates

They are the September 11 attacks not the 11 September attacks. It's perfectly valid Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Full_date_formatting.Vespine (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to mention his writing for Slate in the lead?

User:Farrtj has removed the mention of the fact that Hitchens regularly wrote for Slate from the lead three times now. Do we want to mention this in the lead or not? In my view this should be mentioned because the publication is noteworthy and Hitchens's writings there constitute a significant part of his career. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a notable publication in terms of global footprint and influence in the same way as the other publications The Atlantic, The Nation and Vanity Fair, or the publications that I added such as The Daily Mirror, New Statesman or The Times Literary Supplement.Farrtj (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
But Slate is a notable publication, so the fact that he wrote for other publications which were more notable isn't a reason not to mention it. Also, it's not just a question of Slate's reputation, but whether Hitchens's writings for Slate are a notable part of his own career. My view is that they are highly notable -- they're discussed and referenced several times in this article and in the article on Christopher Hitchens's political views, and some were published in Arguably. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that it demonstrates his eminence as a writer if we note that he was published in the TLS. Slate is essentially tabloidesque, and much of his writings for it are short, slapdash pieces, probably written whilst drunk. Farrtj (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Slate should be included. danielkueh (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TV Appearances

He also appeared as guest host on 'Talk Live' on CNBC in 1991.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-bohT3Ay-o&feature=relmfu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.193.123 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Every appearance does not have to be itemized.

Break with the left, from the introduction

From the introduction: "His departure from the established political left began in 1989 after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left following Ayatollah Khomeini's issue of a fatwā calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie."

His break with the left began with his support for the Falklands Invasion, surely. Farrtj (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Him supporting the invasion of the Falklands sounds quite unlikely, as someone who had criticised Pinochet etc, that it surely needs a good source to back it up. 90.219.241.228 (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"American" vs. "U. S.-american"

Would it be possible to change "English and American" to "English and U. S. American", at least in the data box at the side of the page. Perhaps in the main text this is too clumsy, but at least in the data box I think this is needed for the following reasoning.

In general I would think Wikipedia Articles need to more accurately classify any given person as U. S.-american as opposed to American.

It seems in day-to-day usage, America is applied to the U. S. A. But when America when pressed technically, designates two continents, both North and South America, which further contain not just the U. S. A., but also Mexiko, Brazil, Peru, Columbia, and, yes, whether U. S.-americans or canadians like it or not, Canada too. A relevant analogue, is that one would not called in technical literature someone whose citizenship was in China, merely an 'Asian'; or someone whose citizenship was in France merely a 'European'.

drusus null 15:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drusus 0 (talk • contribs)

It is the universal common practice to refer to the USA as "America" and its people as "Americans". Only in specialised contexts does the word refer to continents, which is clear from context (viz. saying "North" or "South" in front of it). To say "US American" would be like saying "citizen of the French Republic" or "citizen of the People's Republic of China". Source: all of print and broadcast media. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Over citing

The following cites appeared after a reference to Cindy Sheehan but none refers to her. Previous references to topics of his criticism have already been referenced, so these could probably be dropped, or at least put in place in relation to the person referred to. Every talk/interview he gave does not have to be listed.Mommie Dearest Slate, 20 October 2003 — Hitchens's op-ed for Slate regarding Mother Theresa, Christopher Hitchens, "Living in Thomas Jefferson's Fictions" NPR, 1 June 2005; "Why Orwell Still Matters", BBC News, 3 July 2002; Bill Moyers Talks with Christopher Hitchens, PBS, 20 December 2002; Edward Luce (11 January 2008). "Lunch with the FT: Christopher Hitchens". Financial Times. Retrieved 12 January 2008.. Parkwells (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Given that he hated Kissinger and his supporters more than anybody else, and he's written extensively on it, I think it deserves a more in depth mention. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Galloway quote

The George Galloway quote reverted here should stay, in some form. True, it is from a blog, but a blog at the Daily Record written by an MP – a very reasonable source for political remarks. True also, it might not fit best in the "Reaction to death" section – I would put it in "Political views", perhaps where Hitchens' "temporary neocon allies" are mentioned. But it does quite neatly convey the acid feelings of many on the Left toward Hitchens, an important part of his life story which is not currently well addressed in the article. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Assessment"

This section feels tacked on, quotes only two sources -- both of which are rather negative, and were apparently published before his death -- and struck me as an unfitting end to an entry on a recently deceased person. Does somebody feel like expanding it to be more balanced? Otherwise i'm voting for just dropping it. Doceddi (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Removing it. When somebody adds some positive stuff to balance it out, then maybe put it back. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Glad i wasn't alone in this. Doceddi (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Great book review of "Mortality"

Asteroid

The article on Hitchens says:

"In 2002 Asteroid 57901 Hitchens was named after him."

However, although the asteroid was indeed discovered in 2002, it was named "Hitchens" in 2011, a few days before Hitchens' death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57901_Hitchens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.239.217.60 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a source for the 2011 claim. The Rushdie source is from his tumblr and his actual Vanity Fair piece doesn't mention the asteroid [7]. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Better Picture

Could we please find a better picture of Hitchens, It looks somewhat like he is going cross-eyed in this picture. Even something like this, http://nationalpostcomment.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/hitchens.jpg?w=620 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.100.50 (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

G/god is not great

The capitalisation of the "g" is not consistent in the article. What should it be changed to? Acoma Magic (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't care. It should be consistent, though. I think some print editions had "g" on the front cover and others "G". There is a discussion about this either above or in this talk page's archives, above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hitchens clearly intended the 'g' to be uncapitalised, as he always uses 'god' rather than 'God'. It would therefore make more sense to not capitalise the 'g'. And the print editions with a capital 'G' had the whole title capitalised, so one cannot differentiate between the capitalisation of each letter. Treeroy (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It is on his American publisher's catalog with a lower-case 'g':
It is intentional: Note that they publish another book where God is capitalized.
On his British publisher's site, it is spelled both ways:
  • "Catalogue". Atlantic Books. Retrieved 2013/01/20. Snowed in this weekend? How about Long Live Hitch, which includes god is not Great, Arguably and Hitch-22? {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • "God is Not Great". Retrieved 2013/01/20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

What the article can say: What the American and British titles are and what Hitchens intended. -- Javaweb (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Feminism

Hitchen's views on Feminism seemed to have been ambivalent. In particular he stated in an interview that "women shouldn't have to work". Does it deserve its own section? --62.88.128.120 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Marriage date discrepancy

There is a discrepancy in the article regarding the date of Hitchens' second marriage. The infobox gives the year as 1989, as does the section "American career (1981–2011)". However, the section "Marriages and Children" gives the year as 1991. The marriages section is sourced to a New York magazine piece, but I do not see a mention of the date of marriage in that article. A quick Lexis/Nexis search shows a gossip column in the Washington Times from 2/1990 where Blue is referred to as Hitchens' girlfriend. However, I haven't been able to find a reliable source for the year of his second marriage. GabrielF (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find a source for the 1991 date. GabrielF (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Education

"Leys School in Cambridge, and finally Balliol College in Oxford" is presumably accurate, but I know it to be incomplete. A short part of Christopher Hitchens' schooling, immediately prior to going up to Oxford, was at the then Beckenham and Penge Grammar School for boys. I mention this here rather than in the article since I cannot find a reference for this. I knew him then as that was my school, and we both went up to Oxford from there, I at the start of academic year 1966, as I think did he.

I do not know why he switched from his previous school. NickSharp (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

his cancer risk was elevated

His father died of the same type which Wikipedia mentions as a big risk factor. Should that be added along with his cigs and alcohol as a probable factor in his cancer? --99.66.146.19 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Education

As the article now stands, his mother is recorded as "sending him" first to Mount House School, then to the Leys School, and finally to Balliol College, Oxford. Even in the class-conscious 1960s it wasn't usually possible for a mother (or indeed father) to "send" her son to a specified Oxford college. Entrance to Oxford has been by competitive examination for quite a long time.Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hitchens called a Jew Hater not supported by given source

In the section The_rights_of_Jews_and_anti-Semitism,

it starts out, "Hitchens has been called a Jew hater, for his stances calling Holocaust survivor[88] Henry Kissinger a war criminal'," The reference[88] is titled Kissinger's 'Despicable' Comments About Gassing Soviet Jews Revealed in Nixon Tapes 'Kissinger, in addition to being the quintessential court Jew, is also a hypocrite.'

It is neither written by or mentions Hitchens. Right now we have virtually nothing. First, we need a reliable reference from an important source. Second, if it is say, Fred, that said it, the article might say Fred called him a Jew Hater. Fred better be notable in his own right and his opinion notable enough. --Javaweb (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Javaweb I'm removing this, the 10th, Kissinger reference. His dislike of Kissinger is mentioned enough in the article and His dislike has nothing to do with Kissinger being a refugee from the Nazis. --Javaweb (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Javaweb

Is Christopher Hitchens delivers the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at UCLA on YouTube supposed to be the reference? It is 42 minutes long and readers can't be expected to commit 3/4 of an hour to check a fact. Is there a "starting-at mm:ss" that a reader can jump to confirm it?
I am going to go ahead and remove it, it's not a WP:BLP but you need secondary sourcing for a charge like that. Not to mention the entire paragraph is unsourced.Systems Theorist (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I Don't understand how you 2 can take such a selective citation stance so obvious. The section about "anti-Zionism" first takes a quote by a pro-Israel CRITIC makes it a whole basis for an opinion OUT OF CONTEXT. That is, in fact his opinion on the subject, specifically the degree of his populist for Britain "anti-Zionism" had changed multiple times, and was not the point of the article just one paragraph, and as is the M.O. of EVERY antiZionist idea which I have ever read even purposely takes things out of context. In that brief paragraph it states "at the time a prominent anti-Zionist" however the "at the time" was purposely left out and to that you have no issues? "At the time" implies his opinion on the subject may have grown as he understood more. On the other hand my Paragraph was written by him, and the point of the whole article was Jews are targeted for hatred like no one else, that was the whole reason for the article. If your censorship is not the definition of selective citation I do not know what is. Also the JEw Hatred is construed from Hitchen's book when he viewed his grandmother with disgust because she was Jewish for a moment, then felt embarrassed that he had done that. I am adding the quotes about Hamas to the Israel part, you can not get away with censoring that can you?Jhgtnlrs dnbtojn (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Christopher hitchens

Simply someone whose death left an appalling void. Now watching him, reading his stuff...being always amazed at his down to earth...prosaic take on esoteric , abstract...non answerable, non proven claptrap....and reducing it to honest, educated...oh how educated hilarity. One of the best things I ever saw was his and Stephen fryes debate with some superannuated, dressed up African catholic and god..her name eludes me, I watch it periodically....I miss the hell out of him. What a loss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.195.58 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree, talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Cheers.Mophedd (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cutting Death section down to size

I've been bold and cut down the death section because it seems to me like a clear example of recentism that was never corrected. Hitchens's illness should be covered in a lengthier format than usual because of the way it was prominent in his later life. But listing so many reactions to his death is clearly excessive, we don't do that in biographical articles of people from earlier times. To be frank I feel like it should be trimmed down even further but this will do for now. Junes (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish or of Jewish Descent?

The entire section on his ancestry is in the wrong place, let us start there. I went looking for it in his Early life and found it in "views on religion". I guess overlap is allowed. On another note How much distant Jewish ancestry do you need to be still Jewish? I mean is it like the one drop rule? I am sure at some point he fails Who is a Jew. And if so then all these WP:OVERCAT need to be addressed. As he is NOT a Jewish Atheist just a plain old atheist. --Inayity (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As an ethnicity though he certainly identified as Jewish to some extent. Is this what you mean by "Jewish descent" being used rather than "Jewish"?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mother's suicide pact

The statement 

Hitchens said he thought his mother was pressured into suicide by fear that her husband would learn of her infidelity,
as their marriage had been strained and unhappy.

needs badly to be either sourced or removed. I don't have a copy of his memoir with me, but I'm fairly sure I've heard him say that his father already knew. I believe Christopher said that though his father knew, his mother would still accompany his father to social gatherings, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.89.164 (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hitch-22 A Memoir page 22: "[My father] ... had also had to reconcile himself to the loss of his adored wife's affection, in a day when divorce was still considered scandalous, and had reluctantly agreed that she would spend much of her private time at the house of another man." I will remove the incorrect statement. Maproom (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher or not?

The recent addition of the term 'philosopher' in the introduction of the article had me agreeing with it, but it has now been removed again. Of course having studied philosophy in University as he did obviously wouldn't qualify him as a 'philosopher' in any realistic sense (even with his status as a public intellectual), but I can't quite discard the term 'philosopher' as easily as I would others (like 'mathematician' or 'logician', both of which would obviously would be false). A lot of his writings, recorded speeches, debates, opinions and interviews etc. certainly imply to have been in him a profound awareness, knowledge and dedication to philosophical themes and questions, quite visible in his work as well, and especially in his later years (occupation with atheism, morality, religion, ethical discourse, and having thoroughly and carefully considered opinions on issues like, say, abortion etc. that cannot possibly only be called political in any sense). So what do fellow editors think of this? Even if he wasn't a professional philosopher, and even if he didn't come up with an original, devastating philosophical idea or work to shatter the world, must one really do so to be recognized as someone who at least dealt with philosophy often, if only on a less visible but definitely noticeable level? I cannot see how 'philosopher' would be inaccurate or untrue in his case, hence this post calling for more enlightened people to educate me. I'm not trying to start a long, pointless discussion about "what is philosophy?"; and I might be making an issue of nothing, but I thought it'll be worth talking about since the recent addition of that title has just been removed for reasons that I perhaps just fail to see (being one who agrees with the accuracy of it). I don't want to just add it again and risk starting an edit war, so the question is, at least with regards to the article: would the addition of 'philosopher' in the introduction of the article as a description of Hitchens' occupation and body of work (like polemicist, journalist etc.) be justified and (at least somewhat) accurate and appropriate in light of his career? I hope I made sense. Thanks, --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 21:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though I am tempted to agree with you that Hitchens was something of a philisopher, we must respect Wikipedia:Verifiability. Whilst many sources can be found that say Hitchens was an intellectual, writer, orator, raconteur, polemicist, etc., few, if any, can be found saying that he was a philosopher. In fact a quick look has just revealed two sources that explicitly say he was not a philosopher.[8][9] This makes it very difficult for us to call him one, regardless of what we might think.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I added the [citation needed] tag to calling Hitch a philosopher. The citations offered did not say he was a philosopher which is why I added the tag. I do not think adding philosopher to the introduction is an accurate description of Hitchens, as he didn't actually contribute to the field of philosophy, unlike say Daniel Dennett, which in my mind would be the minimum requirement to be considered a philosopher, a degree being much preferred. And even just with a degree one should be contributing to the field of philosophy in addition to holding the piece of paper, Hitchens did neither. SomeLeviathan (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm yes, I think I get it now: the lack of a contribution to the field of philosophy would in fact in itself, as you say SomeLeviathan, be enough to disqualify him from the title philosopher. And those two sources stating that he was not a philosopher... It really makes sense in light of what you have both said, and I had a suspicion that the issue would really simple and that it's just me trying to force a term which definition I might have misunderstood. I thank you for your responses, it clarified a lot for me. --Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad 05:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Mr Hitchens was most clearly not a philosopher in any restrained sense of the word. This is a biography that already suffers from excessive titling. What does "philosopher" mean to the reader when the subject is already a "writer, journalist, literary critic, public intellectual and contrarian" ? --Ktlynch (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Polish descent

I see that User:Titancards has deleted various Polish categories, as Polish descent is nowhere mentioned in the article.

His autobiography Hitch-22 (ISBN 978 184354 922 2, 2011) on page 27 reads "My mother's ancestors did in fact come from a small and ultimately rather distraught small town in German-Polish Prussia". But in my view, that is not worth mentioning in the article. Maproom (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
  • "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"
Extended content

METHODOLOGY:

Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.

First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [10], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[11] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[12] in article space and found five pages:

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Atheism isn't a religion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: Ir would be astonishing to see that Madalyn Murray O'Hair had a Religion:None entry rather than "Religion None (atheist)" as it is at present. She is America's most famous atheist. Athiesm is all she is known for. Athiesm (the conviction that there is certainly that there is no God) is a belief system. There is a big difference between having no religious views at all and being certain that no god exists. The parenthetic note when someone is a famous athiest is the most informative and least astonishing way to summarize the person's basic info. Edison (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Disagree: Atheism is neither a religion nor a belief system. However, these are not arguments against "Religion = None (atheist)". These are arguments against "Religion = Atheist", which nobody is proposing. Enclosure within parentheses indicates the term "atheist" is merely clarifying the previous piece of ambiguous information. The argument about shoehorning too much detail into the infobox is weak. Other infobox entries (eg. Born, Died, Cause of Death, Nationality, Alma mater) are well in excess of two words. tH0r (talk contribs) 16:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Good point, L0st_H0r!z0ns. I didn't really consider the significance of the brackets before making my comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Edison: Athiesm (the conviction that there is certainly that there is no God) is a belief system. Several things wrong with that statement so let's take them one by one.
1) Atheism isn't the conviction or certainty of anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Belief that there is no god is a subset of atheism called variously "Strong Atheism" "Positive Atheism" "Antitheism" or "Hard Atheism"
2) Atheism isn't a belief system it's the lack of a single belief. Strong atheism isn't a belief system it's a single belief.
3) The conviction of most strong atheists falls well short of certainty. For many it's not even knowledge. Most strong atheists are agnostic meaning their position is accurately described as "I believe that no god exists but I don't know that no god exists". While there are some gnostic strong atheists their position is also not certainty.
The accurate way to describe an atheist's religion is the same as the accurate way to describe a theist's religion. "None" unless they ascribe to a named organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to Death

I found this article which gives a very different take on Hitchens's death, but I just can't make heads or tails of the instructions on adding references.67.234.58.9 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That article was written in 2011 and has nothing to do with his death, which hadn't yet taken place. It has more to do with his possible legacy. -sml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.238.129 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC) correction - it WAS written post death, but is still concerned with his legacy. It offers a worthwhile perspective as it was written by a female former colleague and is primarily concerned with his perceived shortcomings when it came to women's issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.238.129 (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Really?

Was Stephen Fry really a friend of Christopher Hitchens? I doubt it. 15:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.160.139 (talk)

I read the article, and it doesn't claim that he was, just that he spoke at his memorial. Stephenb (Talk) 15:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christopher Hitchens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Hitchens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Christopher Hitchens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christopher Hitchens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

These links where in the external links section. Add them back as citations if there is some assertion we can make in the text.

--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead section should not have citations in it

The lead section should be a summary of the body. Take a look at Richard Dawkins, Hillary Clinton or Reese Witherspoon for examples. The lead section should not need citations. I will move them down into the body text. Any notions that are introduced in the lead should either be copied into the body text or moved down to the body test.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This task is now down and the lead section is much smaller, as it should be.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Convert urls to citations

There are over 60 more urls that have to be converted to citations. It will do it in many edits.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Who picked the horrible picture?

Is this the best picture of Christopher Hitchens available on the Internet? Surely not. I hope that we can remove this unflattering picture and replace it with something more dignified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.48.119 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific. There are many pictures. 31jetjet (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)31jetjet

It's also worth saying that we can't pick from everything "available on the Internet". We have to respect copyright laws. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with 67.253.48.119. Christopher Hitchens was a good-looking guy, and the current picture isn't very flattering. Unfortunately, there's not much to choose from on Wikimedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Christopher_Hitchens). How about one of the following pics until someone uploads something better? tH0r (talk contribs) 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. I put in the first photo.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Political views section

Since we already have Political views of Christopher Hitchens, shouldn't this section just be a summary and without sub-sections? I will soon move the sub-section material to the other article unless someone objects.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oversized sections

It seems that the sections "Personal life" and "Final illness and death" are oversized. They just do not seem that notable in the long run. Maybe some reduction in those sections' text is in order.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoxbox philosopher

I think that we should switch to Infobox writer. That is what our lead section documents in terms of his notability. The first sentence says "authors" first on the list of his roles.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many quotes

This article has too many quotes. Such a style is not encyclopedic. The desired tone is on in our own voice. Please edit the article to replace as many quotes as possible. Just search for the quote character to find them.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

shouldn't the Taunton claim/speculation be discussed and debunked?

the idea is out there, shouldn't be ignored, seems to me likely to be ignored in some combination of fear and faith http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-fantasy-of-the-deathbed-conversion 68.175.11.48 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC) 

do you really think there is a need to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Taunton "I make no Lady Hope-like claims regarding Christopher Hitchens. As we have seen, there were no reports of a deathbed conversion." The guy made a non-claim. It says a lot when 1/5th of the guy's Wikipedia entry is about something that he is saying that he did not say. 81.154.177.92 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2016 (GMT)

Material deleted by sock and redeleted

"Furthermore, he was relieved to have known no scientific evidence exists for a Heaven, which he believed would function like "a celestial North Korea". He often spoke about his efforts to champion "antitheist" as a descriptor as "atheist" was not strong enough to encompass the immoral conundrum that the existence of a "supervising deity" would imply." The quote "a celestial North Korea" comes from an interview and possibly other writing or talks of his, and can be found in many sources, eg[27]. He used the phrase "supervising deity" frequently but I can't verify the rest. But it does seem to be a summary of his stance. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Preferred whisky

There are already many references in the article about Hitch's favorite whisky, but maybe you want to add another one, a youtube video with Hitch's funny 'confession' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP51NnoVErA&t=10s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.182.122 (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Book by Larry Taunton

This article could consider the claim, made in a book by Larry Taunton, that Hitchens had a deathbed conversion to Christianity. I know that this seems unlikely for such an extremely militant atheist, but it was discussed on Newsnight some time ago. 81.140.1.129 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree as it received a lot of coverage.[28][https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/04/deathbed-conversion-christopher-hitchens-defiant-to-last etc. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree also.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that the book does not make that claim; Taunton says only that he "teetered on the edge of faith" toward the end. Hitchens' son, who was present, said even that was false, according to the article linked above by Doug Weller. So if we're going to reference it, we should say that it's refuted in RS. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The claim was refuted and has absolutely no basis in reality and no mention need be made of it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course it was refuted. I think it's encyclopedic. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether it is ridiculous or not is irrelevant. Dont exclude notable content just because you dont like the opinion being presented.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree - it needs to be included because it's been widely reported, refutation and all. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

British-American??

Why does the main article state that Hitchens was "British-American"?

He was an American citizen from 2007 onwards, but his nationality was solely British.

If you're going to state that Hitchens was British-American, then you should equally state that George Washington was British-American, along with every president until Van Buren.

I know the mods on here are largely American, but come on, you're going to claim national "ownership" of someone simply by citizenship?

This site likes to revise history, and everyone knows it, but come on, you're not even trying any more.

Please correct his nationality, or update the American presidents before Van Buren to reflect their new British American status as you see it. While you're at it, update Ghandi's nationality to British-Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.180.30 (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done; Added reference and quotation to support the article's description of Hitchens as Anglo-American tH0r (talk contribs) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Carol Blue

In the sidebar, it says married 1991, died 2011. This is obviously referring to Hitchens' death, but for a moment I was astounded that his wife died the same year he did. Is there not a way to change this to w. for widowed? Air♠CombatTalk! 16:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way— lookup the template used in the info box: {{marriage}} to realize: just change end=d to end=w. QED WurmWoodeT 01:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Such formats cause confusion, with readers incorrectly assuming that the wrong partner died, and so were consequently deprecated after a community discussion. DrKay (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Christ myth theory proponent?

Over at the talk page for List of Christ myth theory proponents, a website was cited by an IP that mentioned Hitchens as a mythicist proponent. The quote in question seems to be Hitchens talking of "the highly questionable existence of Jesus" in God Is Not Great, p. 114. This seems to be a tiny quote-mine. I think it would be inaccurate to describe him as a "Christ myth theory proponent" as he did not really touch on that subject in detail. I could be wrong but I cannot find any serious discussion about him on the topic. What do others think? Is that category inaccurate for Hitchens? I have a big foot (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Mother’s death

Hitchens’ mother’s death is cited and relevant to the article. I reverted its removal but it has been re-removed by @Ceoil:. What is the reason for this? Hitchens wrote about it and the suicide of his mother clearly had a profound effect on him. Mramoeba (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, two of the four edits were uncontroversial and were left as is. Mramoeba (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reason must have been that the incident was mentioned in the article twice. Retimuko (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Hitchens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexuality

This [29] is notable as it made mainstream media, it's self-disclosure and seems uncontroversial. Has there been any attempt to add it to this article yet? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Smoking

I believe that Hitchens was an extremely heavy smoker, and that this was probably a main cause of his terminal ill health. If this can be confirmed I think it would improve the article to record it. Seadowns (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Social democrat?

The article's lead says he self-identified as a social democrat but is never mentioned again. I looked online and could not find a single source calling him one. There's is also no mention of his supposed support for social democracy in the Political views of Christopher Hitchens article.ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering nobody has voiced any objections I have gone and made a change.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

intro

hi. this: '...he broke from the political left after what he called the "tepid reaction" of the Western left to the Satanic Verses controversy, followed by the left's embrace of Bill Clinton...' would read better as: '...he broke from the political left after what he called ITS "tepid reaction" to the Satanic Verses controversy, followed by ITS embrace of Bill Clinton...'. in the current wording, the left is named too many times; the repetition is both redundant and awkward. for what it's worth. hope this helps. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Why Women Aren't Funny" is a minor piece that Hitchens would never consider apart of his political philosophy

The comments about women (beginning with "He also...") are not indicative of Hitchens body of work and should not be included in the introduction. Hitchens was one of the most vocal advocates for liberal values including free speech for objective facts and recognized that sex differences can be protected by a liberal society. The fact that this issue is taken up again in the first paragraph of the section entitled political views, when these are obviously not political views, suggests vandalism of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.36.20 (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This anonymous comment seems to violate the WP:AGF guideline. The revision certainly does not look like vandalism to me, and the essay is a verifiably notable part of Hitchens' legacy. If you google "Christopher Hitchens" "why women aren't funny", you get 13,700 results, including many reliable sources characterizing the essay as "infamous", "notorious", and "famously controversial". Therealfishbear (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Skeptics/Sceptics

it's perfectly possible to be both an atheist and a skeptic (English spelling sceptic). Skepticism includes but is not limited to religious skepticism, notably scientific skepticism. Category:English sceptics More than a handful of these are both atheist and sceptics. For further info on why Hitchens fits both definitions see Skeptical movement#Scientific skepticism. Mramoeba (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

He's also here with a citation to here (piece entitled The Skeptic's Skeptic). Hope that helps clarify. Mramoeba (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Critics of...

"no, it is far from just polemics. These are all important, defining categories for Hitchens"

That is very probably true. But then the article should actually cite such criticisms, or quote some reliable source categorizing him. In removing those categories from this and other articles, I have always checked if there is such a quote, and if it was missing, I have removed the unsourced WP:OR categories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There's the bibliography for one thing: e.g. Is Christianity Good for the World? Hitches argues it isn't. StAnselm (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The title of that work alone just marks him as an opponent of Christianity.
His reasoning is very probably indeed real criticism. But the mere title is not enough to show that. In the last few days, I have removed from Category:Critics of Judaism a lot of articles about people who said many things that could be paraphrased as "Judaism is not good for the world", but who are by no means "critics" of Judaism. I am following the alphabet, so I worked on Hitchens after I cleaned up Joseph Goebbels and before I went on to clean up Adolf Hitler. (The misguided category was added to a lot of such articles by an IP a few years ago.)
I am not saying that Hitch's position regarding any of the religions he criticized was in any way similar to the one those two had regarding Judaism. It definitely wasn't.
I am saying that the article should either quote somebody saying Hitch was a critic of... and so on (otherwise the categories are original research), or at least flesh his criticism out, in order to enable the reader to see that the category is justified. That was the criterion I set beforehand for keeping the category. Sam Harris fulfilled the criterion, so I left him in.
I will not argue any further because this is not urgent and not important, but it is a small weakness of the article as it currently is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Booze and fags

So are we not going to mention his prodigious consumption of alcohol and cigarettes? Its relevant because a) it likely contributed to his death from oesophagal cancer and b) was a major part of his persona, with frequent mentions in media profiles. Hitchens acknowledged on many occasions that he was a heavy drinker, and his wife described him in a New Yorker profile as a "high-functioning alcoholic" (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/16/he-knew-he-was-right-2). Decca Aitkenhead profiles him for the Guardian and writes: "It seems to me so evidently the case that Hitchens is an alcoholic that to say much more feels unnecessary." (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/may/22/christopher-hitchens-decca-aitkenhead) Tom (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is mentioned already: "A heavy smoker and drinker since his teenage years, Hitchens acknowledged that these habits likely contributed to his illness." Retimuko (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy of calling of Hitch a philosopher in the introduction paragraph.

Hitch was not a philosopher. Did he know about philosophy and its scholars? Of course, but he was always moreso a literary critic and political commentator, etc. than he was a philosopher. The vast majority of his books and articles fall into this category, i.e.: not being philosophical. If you watch the debate between Hitch and Frank Turek, this becomes abundantly clear. Describing him as a writer, author, journalist, essayist, polemicist, would all be more accurate terms than philosopher.

GibbNotGibbs (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@GibbNotGibbs:. As user @Mashaunix: has gone ahead and placed a cn tag on the word, this obviously needs a discussion now. The ibox temp has params related to philosopher and most importantly a cn tag on the opening line is a huge disservice to the readers. I am tempted to go ahead and just remove the word philosopher (I too agree that even he wouldn't describe himself as one if he was still living), and replace it with polemicist as he would often be described by popular media. I also think we need to add social and political critic instead of just, social critic, in the intro line. The ibox params also need to be changed in case editors agree with this. - Harsh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think "philosopher" can only be included if there are multiple sources describing him that way or describing some of his work as philosophy. In general, I am in favor of keeping the lead as simple as possible. I think something like "writer, orator, journalist, and social critic" would be enough. The current description strikes me as awkard and unduly deferential at the same time.
PS maybe also something like "political activist" to emphasize his direct engagement with political causes around the world.--MASHAUNIX 12:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Political activist? I chuckled a little. You aren't too aware of the person perhaps. I'd say I am fine with the article as is. I don't want to change the ibox philosopher param too. If you are in disagreement with @Tuvixer:'s reversion of your tag, maybe we can have an RfC. I am fine with that. - Harsh (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, "social and political critic" sounds fine. But what in your own view justifies calling someone a philosopher without basing that description in any source?--MASHAUNIX 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who has contributed in one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, and political philosophy. A philosopher may also be one who worked in the humanities or other sciences which have since split from philosophy proper over the centuries, such as the arts, history, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics.

- from Philosopher's lead section. In any case, I don't mind calling for an RfC. - Harsh (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So which branch of philosophy did he contribute to, and in which work? I don't see the justificaion. But I don't find this issue too important, so I make no appeal as to the RfC.--MASHAUNIX 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
To offer a definition of a philosopher and then decide that someone meets it is original research. If he's to be described as a philosopher, there need to be high-quality sources that state that. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Mashaunix: I agree that me unilaterally arguing he would fit this definition is a flimsy defense. The most I could find (in my very limited time) were these;

  • Slate - "Writer, philosopher, gadfly, and Slate contributor Chrisopher Hitchens died on Thursday..."
  • CTV news - "Christopher Hitchens, philosopher, author, essayist, literary critic, died from complications related to esophageal cancer..."
  • [30] The Express Times - "Since author and philosopher Christopher Hitchens died about 15 months ago..."
  • [31] The Hindu - "...English-American intellectual, philosopher, social critic and writer Christopher Hitchens"

In my opinion, the definition of a philosopher (if such a definition can be agreed upon) is anyways very loose. If any of today's 2 bit academics can refer to themselves as philosophers (and make others follow suit), without intending to do so colloquially, I don't see why Hitchens wouldn't be included in that definition with his vast success and notoriety as a writer and orator, advocating theological criticism and social thought, in the later part of his life. Now, I know majors of philosophy who achieve success can call themselves philosophers and people wouldn't fault them for it, (we shouldn't argue philosophy major a philosopher; physics major a physicist); attaching such an epithet to a person's article on wikipedia would require a higher degree of support. But in my opinion the term itself is not intrinsically normative. Anyways, the few cited sources should give some support to my argument. It is possible that someone could find better support in published books/journals which refer to Hitchens as a philosopher. I can't devote time into this right now as I have some personal commitments. Again, I wouldn't mind an RfC. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps @Tuvixer: can explain why to him it seems clearer than the sunrise.--MASHAUNIX 17:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Support for the Iraq war

I love Hitch, but his support for the Iraq War, which makes zero sense to me and other liberals/progressives, is quite literally buried in this biography. Historically and legacy wise, it has become a major point of contention over time when it comes to discussing his body of work. Therefore, I maintain, it necessitates its own separate section. I realize this is highly controversial, but I think it is sorely needed. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This list of Hitchens' influences needs references so it can be put back up

I've finished adding references to the list. 2601:346:C281:79F0:45E2:43FD:A27F:FB95 (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone removed this list because they didn't like who was on it.

Thomas Paine,[1] Thomas Jefferson,[2] Mark Twain,[3] Charles Darwin,[4] Sigmund Freud,[5] George Eliot,[6] Karl Marx,[7] Friedrich Engels,[8] Vladimir Lenin,[9] Leon Trotsky,[10] Rosa Luxemburg,[11] Emma Goldman,[12] Gore Vidal,[13] Richard Llewellyn,[14] Aldous Huxley,[15] P. G. Wodehouse,[16] Evelyn Waugh,[17] Paul Scott,[18] James Joyce,[19] Albert Camus,[20] Oscar Wilde,[21] Conor Cruise O'Brien,[22] James Fenton,[23] Bertrand Russell,[24] Chapman Cohen,[25] Israel Shahak[26]

2601:346:C281:79F0:78A0:5700:BD04:6AAB (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No. I (and others) removed the list because there are no references. I have absolutely no issues with any of those individuals. You are free to place each individual back on the list if they are properly referenced. ExRat (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ExRat it is not who is on the list but the fact the list does not cite reliable sources. WP:RS. It is a long and varied list but its veracity needs to be verifiable WP:V. Robynthehode (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Not either of you, I meant the original person who deleted the list (rules aside): "21:31, 23 February 2021‎ Viriditas talk contribs‎ 119,101 bytes −866‎ Remove unsourced list of influences, some of which are clearly trolling undo Tag: Reverted" 2601:346:C281:79F0:78A0:5700:BD04:6AAB (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Where to begin? You believe Bill Maher influenced Hitch? That's ridiculous. Source? Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man: A Biography.
  2. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
  3. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
  4. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
  5. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
  6. ^ Rees, Jasper. "Q&A Special: Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011". theartsdesk.com.
  7. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "The Revenge of Karl Marx". The Atlantic.
  8. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "The Revenge of Karl Marx". The Atlantic.
  9. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Lenin's Moscow". Marxists Internet Archive. International Socialism.
  10. ^ "Great Lives, Series 10, Leon Trotsky". BBC Radio 4. BBC.
  11. ^ "Great Lives, Series 10, Leon Trotsky". BBC Radio 4. BBC.
  12. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
  13. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Vidal Loco". Vanity Fair. Condé Nast.
  14. ^ "Christopher Hitchens: 6 influential books". The Week.
  15. ^ Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited. p. vii.
  16. ^ Buckley, Christopher. "Postscript: Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011". The New Yorker. Condé Nast.
  17. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "The Permanent Adolescent". The Atlantic.
  18. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. And Yet...: Essays.
  19. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Joyce in Bloom". Vanity Fair. Condé Nast.
  20. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Hitch 22: A Memoir.
  21. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "THE WILDE SIDE". Vanity Fair. Condé Nast.
  22. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "The Cruiser". London Review of Books.
  23. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. Hitch 22: A Memoir.
  24. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
  25. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.
  26. ^ Hitchens, Christopher. "Israel Shahak, 1933-2001". The Nation.

Antitheism terminology

As the link to antitheism shows, Hitchens used the word incorrectly. He describes criticisms of religion, as opposed to theism. The wording should remain, as he did use the term, though it needs to be mentioned that his usage is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:545:C002:97C0:B4E4:12CF:2A43:A2F9 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing the title of the section in the sidebar

The section of the sidebar that lists Hitchens’ ideas and accomplishments should be titled “Career” (or something similar) rather than “Philosophy career” because the current heading falsely suggests that his career and recognition is primarily in the field of philosophy:

1. The current sidebar incorrectly implies that he studied philosophy at the Leys School

2. None of the awards mentioned have anything to do with philosophy

3. The sidebar suggests that he has contributed to the fields of contemporary and western philosophy, but the page provides no evidence of this and the IEP source casts doubt on this: "...critics point out that the New Atheist assumption that religious faith is irrational is at odds with a long philosophical history in the West that often characterizes faith as rational. This Western Philosophical tradition can be said to begin with Augustine and to include a number of prominent Western philosophers up to the present..."

4. The sidebar suggests that New Atheism is a school of philosophy, even though the source says, "The New Atheists are not philosophers of religion, and none of them addresses either theistic or atheistic arguments to any great extent."

5. All of the “Main interests” are in fields other than philosophy

6. The sidebar suggests that “Hitchens Razor” is a significant concept among philosophers, but this is unsupported and seems to be false

7. The page says virtually nothing about any contributions to the academic field of philosophy. Instead, it talks primarily about his contributions as a polemicist and journalist, which is what he is best known for and how he is introduced in the article.

I suggest calling the section “Career” because it is more accurate and is in line with the rest of the article. I also suggest removing the mention of “contemporary philosophy” and “western philosophy” unless sources are provided that demonstrate that contributions to those fields are a significant part of his career. I agree, though, that all the other information in the sidebar (including the things I mention above) are relevant and should stay in the sidebar if the title is updated. Theobvioushero (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Theobvioushero: Thanks for the heads up, I will take care of it soon. Wretchskull (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Hitchens/Archive_5&oldid=1249829426"